Spirit
Baptism in the Gospels, part 1
Baptism in the Gospels, part 1
The only references
in the gospels to Spirit baptism[i]
are found in Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; and John 1:33. All of these are upon the lips of John
the Baptist. John, the first
Baptist preacher, prepared the way for the Lord Jesus by preaching the gospel
and immersing people who had been saved, preparing people for Christ’s coming
and His gathering of the church during His earthly ministry.[ii]
John’s baptism is that practiced by Christ’s church and perpetuated from the
first century until today[iii]
by true Baptist churches; his baptism was not some other sort of non-Christian
baptism.[iv] When “John did baptize in the
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins[,]
[a]nd there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem,
and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins”
(Mark 1:4-5), then the Baptist preached to those he immersed that “there cometh
one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to
stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mark 1:7-8). John thus identified the recipients of Spirit baptism with
believers who had received his baptism. Spirit baptism was not received only by
the apostles, but was for the church as an institution, the entire body of
immersed believers. This was in
line with Old Testament predictions, which affirmed that men and women, old and
young, would receive Spirit baptism (Joel 2:28-29). The context of Matthew 3:11[v]
and Luke 3:16[vi] likewise
identify those who believe the gospel and are immersed with the recipients of
Spirit baptism. When the Baptist,
as recorded in John 1:19-33, specifically speaks to unbelieving and unbaptized
individuals, to unconverted “priests and Levites . . . of the Pharisees,” he
does not say that they will be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
in the gospels to Spirit baptism[i]
are found in Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; and John 1:33. All of these are upon the lips of John
the Baptist. John, the first
Baptist preacher, prepared the way for the Lord Jesus by preaching the gospel
and immersing people who had been saved, preparing people for Christ’s coming
and His gathering of the church during His earthly ministry.[ii]
John’s baptism is that practiced by Christ’s church and perpetuated from the
first century until today[iii]
by true Baptist churches; his baptism was not some other sort of non-Christian
baptism.[iv] When “John did baptize in the
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins[,]
[a]nd there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem,
and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins”
(Mark 1:4-5), then the Baptist preached to those he immersed that “there cometh
one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to
stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mark 1:7-8). John thus identified the recipients of Spirit baptism with
believers who had received his baptism. Spirit baptism was not received only by
the apostles, but was for the church as an institution, the entire body of
immersed believers. This was in
line with Old Testament predictions, which affirmed that men and women, old and
young, would receive Spirit baptism (Joel 2:28-29). The context of Matthew 3:11[v]
and Luke 3:16[vi] likewise
identify those who believe the gospel and are immersed with the recipients of
Spirit baptism. When the Baptist,
as recorded in John 1:19-33, specifically speaks to unbelieving and unbaptized
individuals, to unconverted “priests and Levites . . . of the Pharisees,” he
does not say that they will be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
-TDR
Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series, is available by clicking here.
[i] The
phrase is employed only in these verses.
Luke 11:13 is also related, and will be discussed in later posts.
phrase is employed only in these verses.
Luke 11:13 is also related, and will be discussed in later posts.
[ii]
Christ
started His church during His earthly ministry (Matthew 18:17) from people
converted and baptized by John the Baptist (John 1:35-37) and promised that His
assembly would overcome the powers of hell from that time to the end of the age
(Matthew 16:18). Obviously already extant, the church was “added unto” on the
day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41, 47) with the conversion of three thousand men. The
common idea adopted by UCDs that the church started on Pentecost is
unbiblical. No verse anywhere
states that the church began on that day.
The Lord referred to His church twice in the gospels (Matthew 16:18;
18:17), without any indication whatever that it did not yet exist. Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom, had the
church as His bride before Pentecost (John 3:29; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2;
Ephesians 5:22-33). “God hath set
. . . in the church, first apostles” (1 Corinthians 12:28), but the Lord
appointed the apostles far before Pentecost (Mark 3:13-19; Matthew
10:2-4). Christ sang in the midst
of the church (Hebrews 2:12), but His only recorded singing took place at the
institution of the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:30)—an ordinance given to the
church before Pentecost (Matthew 26:26-31; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 17-34). Before Pentecost Christ was the
shepherd/pastor of His church (John 10:14), which was already His flock (a term
for the church; Matthew 26:31; Luke 12:32; Acts 20:28-29; 1 Peter 5:2-3), until
He appointed Peter to pastor His first assembly after His resurrection (John
21:15-17). His church had a
business meeting (Acts 1:15-26), a membership roll (Acts 1:15), a treasurer
(John 12:6; 13:29), baptism (John 4:1-2), the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-31),
church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), the power to bind and loose (Matthew
18:17-18), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) before it was it was “added
unto” on Pentecost (Acts 2:41, 47).
On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 the church simply received the
permanent indwelling of the Spirit and public recognition as the new
institution for the course of the age of grace (cf. Exodus 40:35; the
tabernacle; 2 Chronicles 7:1; Solomon’s temple; Ezekiel 43:4-5; the Millennial
temple).
Christ
started His church during His earthly ministry (Matthew 18:17) from people
converted and baptized by John the Baptist (John 1:35-37) and promised that His
assembly would overcome the powers of hell from that time to the end of the age
(Matthew 16:18). Obviously already extant, the church was “added unto” on the
day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41, 47) with the conversion of three thousand men. The
common idea adopted by UCDs that the church started on Pentecost is
unbiblical. No verse anywhere
states that the church began on that day.
The Lord referred to His church twice in the gospels (Matthew 16:18;
18:17), without any indication whatever that it did not yet exist. Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom, had the
church as His bride before Pentecost (John 3:29; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2;
Ephesians 5:22-33). “God hath set
. . . in the church, first apostles” (1 Corinthians 12:28), but the Lord
appointed the apostles far before Pentecost (Mark 3:13-19; Matthew
10:2-4). Christ sang in the midst
of the church (Hebrews 2:12), but His only recorded singing took place at the
institution of the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:30)—an ordinance given to the
church before Pentecost (Matthew 26:26-31; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 17-34). Before Pentecost Christ was the
shepherd/pastor of His church (John 10:14), which was already His flock (a term
for the church; Matthew 26:31; Luke 12:32; Acts 20:28-29; 1 Peter 5:2-3), until
He appointed Peter to pastor His first assembly after His resurrection (John
21:15-17). His church had a
business meeting (Acts 1:15-26), a membership roll (Acts 1:15), a treasurer
(John 12:6; 13:29), baptism (John 4:1-2), the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-31),
church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), the power to bind and loose (Matthew
18:17-18), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) before it was it was “added
unto” on Pentecost (Acts 2:41, 47).
On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 the church simply received the
permanent indwelling of the Spirit and public recognition as the new
institution for the course of the age of grace (cf. Exodus 40:35; the
tabernacle; 2 Chronicles 7:1; Solomon’s temple; Ezekiel 43:4-5; the Millennial
temple).
In relation to the only really significant objection
to a pre-Pentecost foundation of the church, the question of how the assembly
could begin before the official inauguration of the New Covenant with the death
of Christ, Dr. Ron Tottingham writes, “[The objectors ask how] could you have a
‘new program’ (church) until you have the shedding of the ‘the blood of the
covenant,’ of He who is the Life and Head of a ‘new and living’ institution? .
. . Hebrews 9:14-18 . . . What is the answer which those . . . would give .
. who would hold that Christ
established the first Church during His personal ministry upon earth[?] . . .
The New Testament Church [was not] ‘of force’ [Hebrews 9:17] until after the
Resurrection. Even Christ still
went to the temple [during His earthly ministry]. . . . Hebrews nine only
states that the covenant of the Levitical ordinances lasted until the true
Blood of Christ was shed. . . . The New Testament Church could not be ready for
service at its ‘baptism’ at Pentecost unless it was built, or ‘framed,’
prior. Who ever heard of moving
into a house [cf. 1 Peter 2:5] (the Holy Spirit moved upon and into the church
at Pentecost) without a floor, frame, and more? . . . How then could the church
begin before the New Covenant began?
By being built [by] the Master Himself during His own personal ministry
upon the earth. Then when he died
as Testator of the New Covenant, His church of the New Testament (covenant) was
ready and waiting to be ‘baptized’ [with] the Holy Spirit and begin [its]
ordained service” (The Door-Step Evangel, 24:2 (March-April 2008) pgs. 1ff. (pub. Empire Baptist Temple/Great
Plains Baptist Divinity School, Sioux Falls, SD)).
to a pre-Pentecost foundation of the church, the question of how the assembly
could begin before the official inauguration of the New Covenant with the death
of Christ, Dr. Ron Tottingham writes, “[The objectors ask how] could you have a
‘new program’ (church) until you have the shedding of the ‘the blood of the
covenant,’ of He who is the Life and Head of a ‘new and living’ institution? .
. . Hebrews 9:14-18 . . . What is the answer which those . . . would give .
. who would hold that Christ
established the first Church during His personal ministry upon earth[?] . . .
The New Testament Church [was not] ‘of force’ [Hebrews 9:17] until after the
Resurrection. Even Christ still
went to the temple [during His earthly ministry]. . . . Hebrews nine only
states that the covenant of the Levitical ordinances lasted until the true
Blood of Christ was shed. . . . The New Testament Church could not be ready for
service at its ‘baptism’ at Pentecost unless it was built, or ‘framed,’
prior. Who ever heard of moving
into a house [cf. 1 Peter 2:5] (the Holy Spirit moved upon and into the church
at Pentecost) without a floor, frame, and more? . . . How then could the church
begin before the New Covenant began?
By being built [by] the Master Himself during His own personal ministry
upon the earth. Then when he died
as Testator of the New Covenant, His church of the New Testament (covenant) was
ready and waiting to be ‘baptized’ [with] the Holy Spirit and begin [its]
ordained service” (The Door-Step Evangel, 24:2 (March-April 2008) pgs. 1ff. (pub. Empire Baptist Temple/Great
Plains Baptist Divinity School, Sioux Falls, SD)).
[iii]
Christ
promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His congregations
(Matthew 16:18), but He would be with them “alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20, cf. 1
Corinthians 11:26), since God would get “glory in the church by Christ Jesus
throughout all ages” (Ephesians 3:21; cf. also “The Great Commission in
Scripture and History,” Thomas Ross. http://thross7.googlepages.com). Consequently, there has never been a
day since Christ started His church in the first century that faithful
assemblies of believers have not been upon the earth. Any religious organization or denomination that originated
in a period subsequent to the first century consequently cannot be the church
that Jesus founded. In addition to
the unscriptural practices of Catholicism, it is evident historically that it
evolved over a period of centuries and has very little resemblance to the
church the Lord Jesus started; it
therefore cannot be the true church of Jesus Christ. The various Protestant denominations, such as Lutheranism,
Anglicanism, Methodism, and Presbyterian and other Reformed groups, came into
existence nearly 1,600 years too late to be the church Jesus founded, and the
various splinter groups that have emerged since the Reformation, such as the
Pentecostal denominations (Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, etc.),
the followers of Alexander Campbell (Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ,
etc.), Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc. also negate any claim to be
Christ’s church by their origin, as they do by their anti-Biblical
doctrines. However, assemblies
that believed and practiced the Bible, as do good Baptist churches today, have
maintained a continual existence under a variety of names (Anabaptists, Waldenses,
Donatists, Novatians, Cathari, Christians, etc.) from the first century to the
present. They certainly did not
originate at the time of the Reformation, as the following quotations
demonstrate: 1.) Cardinal Hosius
(Catholic, a member of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1560): “If the truth of
religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any
sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be
truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for
these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished.” This Catholic prelate, living at the
time of the Reformation, admitted that the Baptists had been around since A. D.
360; of course, allowing them an
origin any more ancient would make his position very uncomfortable. 2.) Mosheim
(Lutheran, A. D. 1755), said, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the
name of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those
who came over to their communion . . . is hid in the remote depths of antiquity,
and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.” 3.) Dr. J. J. Durmont & Dr.
Ypeig (Reformed writers specifically appointed by the King of Holland to
ascertain if the historical claims of the Baptists were valid), concluded in A.
D. 1819 that Baptists were “descended from the tolerably pure evangelical
Waldenses. . . . They were, therefore, in existence long before the Reformed
Church of the Netherlands. . . . We have seen that the Baptists, who were
formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original
Waldenses; and who have long in the history of the Church, received the honor
of that origin. On this account
the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood
since the Apostles; and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the
doctrine of the gospel through all ages.”
4.) Alexander Campbell (founder of the “Disciples of Christ” and “Church
of Christ” denominations, A. D. 1824):
“I would engage to show that baptism as viewed and practiced by the
Baptists, had its advocates in ever century up to the Christian era . . .
clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery,
and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists,
and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public
monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.” See pgs. 83-96,
A History of Baptists, John T.
Christian, vol. 1 (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1922), and History of
Baptists, G. H. Orchard (Texarkana,
TX: Bogard Press, 1987), pgs. iii-xxiv, for the original sources of the
quotations here listed, and further information. Quotations and other evidence
from non-Baptist or anti-Baptist authors of like effect could be greatly multiplied
(e. g., the Reformed writer Leonard Verduin stated “No one is credited with
having invented the Anabaptism of the sixteenth century for the simple reason
that no one did. . . . There were Anabaptists, called by that name, in the
fourth century.” pg. 189-190, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965).
Baptist historians naturally affirm their own succession as well. The
historical fact that Baptist churches have existed from the first century to
the present confirms the truth, established by their Biblical doctrine and
practice, that they are the churches founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, all other “churches” are
guilty of schism and division from the Lord’s true assemblies, and have no
Divine authority to baptize, carry on the work of God, or exist at all. Nor is it surprising that non-Baptists
are mistaken on the doctrine of Spirit baptism, as the doctrine authenticates
Christ’s true church, which they have no part in.
Christ
promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His congregations
(Matthew 16:18), but He would be with them “alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20, cf. 1
Corinthians 11:26), since God would get “glory in the church by Christ Jesus
throughout all ages” (Ephesians 3:21; cf. also “The Great Commission in
Scripture and History,” Thomas Ross. http://thross7.googlepages.com). Consequently, there has never been a
day since Christ started His church in the first century that faithful
assemblies of believers have not been upon the earth. Any religious organization or denomination that originated
in a period subsequent to the first century consequently cannot be the church
that Jesus founded. In addition to
the unscriptural practices of Catholicism, it is evident historically that it
evolved over a period of centuries and has very little resemblance to the
church the Lord Jesus started; it
therefore cannot be the true church of Jesus Christ. The various Protestant denominations, such as Lutheranism,
Anglicanism, Methodism, and Presbyterian and other Reformed groups, came into
existence nearly 1,600 years too late to be the church Jesus founded, and the
various splinter groups that have emerged since the Reformation, such as the
Pentecostal denominations (Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, etc.),
the followers of Alexander Campbell (Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ,
etc.), Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc. also negate any claim to be
Christ’s church by their origin, as they do by their anti-Biblical
doctrines. However, assemblies
that believed and practiced the Bible, as do good Baptist churches today, have
maintained a continual existence under a variety of names (Anabaptists, Waldenses,
Donatists, Novatians, Cathari, Christians, etc.) from the first century to the
present. They certainly did not
originate at the time of the Reformation, as the following quotations
demonstrate: 1.) Cardinal Hosius
(Catholic, a member of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1560): “If the truth of
religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any
sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be
truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since there have been none for
these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished.” This Catholic prelate, living at the
time of the Reformation, admitted that the Baptists had been around since A. D.
360; of course, allowing them an
origin any more ancient would make his position very uncomfortable. 2.) Mosheim
(Lutheran, A. D. 1755), said, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the
name of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those
who came over to their communion . . . is hid in the remote depths of antiquity,
and is consequently extremely difficult to be ascertained.” 3.) Dr. J. J. Durmont & Dr.
Ypeig (Reformed writers specifically appointed by the King of Holland to
ascertain if the historical claims of the Baptists were valid), concluded in A.
D. 1819 that Baptists were “descended from the tolerably pure evangelical
Waldenses. . . . They were, therefore, in existence long before the Reformed
Church of the Netherlands. . . . We have seen that the Baptists, who were
formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original
Waldenses; and who have long in the history of the Church, received the honor
of that origin. On this account
the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood
since the Apostles; and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the
doctrine of the gospel through all ages.”
4.) Alexander Campbell (founder of the “Disciples of Christ” and “Church
of Christ” denominations, A. D. 1824):
“I would engage to show that baptism as viewed and practiced by the
Baptists, had its advocates in ever century up to the Christian era . . .
clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery,
and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists,
and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public
monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.” See pgs. 83-96,
A History of Baptists, John T.
Christian, vol. 1 (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1922), and History of
Baptists, G. H. Orchard (Texarkana,
TX: Bogard Press, 1987), pgs. iii-xxiv, for the original sources of the
quotations here listed, and further information. Quotations and other evidence
from non-Baptist or anti-Baptist authors of like effect could be greatly multiplied
(e. g., the Reformed writer Leonard Verduin stated “No one is credited with
having invented the Anabaptism of the sixteenth century for the simple reason
that no one did. . . . There were Anabaptists, called by that name, in the
fourth century.” pg. 189-190, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965).
Baptist historians naturally affirm their own succession as well. The
historical fact that Baptist churches have existed from the first century to
the present confirms the truth, established by their Biblical doctrine and
practice, that they are the churches founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, all other “churches” are
guilty of schism and division from the Lord’s true assemblies, and have no
Divine authority to baptize, carry on the work of God, or exist at all. Nor is it surprising that non-Baptists
are mistaken on the doctrine of Spirit baptism, as the doctrine authenticates
Christ’s true church, which they have no part in.
[iv]
The New
Testament dispensation began with John, not on the day of Pentecost in the book
of Acts (Mark 1:1-4; Matthew 11:13; Luke 16:16; Matthew 11:5; Mark
8:35)—otherwise Jesus Christ did not preach New Testament doctrine, the four
gospels are not for Christians, the apostles, who were obviously saved before
the book of Acts (Luke 10:20), were not Christians, and other equally absurd
conclusions follow. John the Baptist preached about the Deity of Christ (John
1:23; Isaiah 40:3), His substitutionary death (John 1:29), repentance (Matthew
3:2), hell (Matthew 3:10-12), Christ’s bride, the church (John 3:29; Ephesians
5:32), etc. He required confession
of sin (Matthew 3:6) and evidence of salvation (Matthew 3:8) before he would
baptize people, so he baptized only believers, not infants. He immersed, not sprinkled or poured
(Mark 1:5, John 3:23, etc.), and his baptism pictured Christ’s coming death,
burial, and resurrection (John 1:31).
He had God’s authority to baptize (Matthew 21:24-27), just as the church
has that authority today (Matthew 28:18-20). The apostles had John’s baptism (Acts 1:22), but were never
“rebaptized” when some supposedly different Christian baptism originated—nor
were any other converts ever “rebaptized.” When Christ commanded His church to go into all the world,
preach, baptize, and disciple converts (Matthew 28:17-20; Mark 16:15-16, etc.),
He spoke to those who had received John’s baptism and were familiar with no
other kind.
The New
Testament dispensation began with John, not on the day of Pentecost in the book
of Acts (Mark 1:1-4; Matthew 11:13; Luke 16:16; Matthew 11:5; Mark
8:35)—otherwise Jesus Christ did not preach New Testament doctrine, the four
gospels are not for Christians, the apostles, who were obviously saved before
the book of Acts (Luke 10:20), were not Christians, and other equally absurd
conclusions follow. John the Baptist preached about the Deity of Christ (John
1:23; Isaiah 40:3), His substitutionary death (John 1:29), repentance (Matthew
3:2), hell (Matthew 3:10-12), Christ’s bride, the church (John 3:29; Ephesians
5:32), etc. He required confession
of sin (Matthew 3:6) and evidence of salvation (Matthew 3:8) before he would
baptize people, so he baptized only believers, not infants. He immersed, not sprinkled or poured
(Mark 1:5, John 3:23, etc.), and his baptism pictured Christ’s coming death,
burial, and resurrection (John 1:31).
He had God’s authority to baptize (Matthew 21:24-27), just as the church
has that authority today (Matthew 28:18-20). The apostles had John’s baptism (Acts 1:22), but were never
“rebaptized” when some supposedly different Christian baptism originated—nor
were any other converts ever “rebaptized.” When Christ commanded His church to go into all the world,
preach, baptize, and disciple converts (Matthew 28:17-20; Mark 16:15-16, etc.),
He spoke to those who had received John’s baptism and were familiar with no
other kind.
The alleged support for a distinction between John’s
baptism and Christian baptism in Acts 19:1-7 is invalid. The individuals of Acts 19 were
spurious “converts,” not real disciples of John the Baptist. They did not believe in the Trinity,
and so were unsaved (John 17:3), for they had never even heard of the Holy
Spirit (19:2), although John preached about Him (Matthew 3:11). Their spurious discipleship is
indicated by the fact that the plural word “disciples,” mathetai, is nonarticular in 19:1—unlike every single one of
the 25 other references in the book of Acts to the word (1:15; 6:1-2, 7; 9:1,
19, 26, 38; 11:26, 29; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:1, 9, 30; 20:7, 30;
21:4, 16). Paul does not tell
these “disciples” that John’s baptism has passed away and Christian baptism has
now been inaugurated; he tells
them what John the Baptist really said (19:4), upon which they believed John’s
message as expounded by Paul and submitted themselves to baptism (19:5-7). Note that a truly born-again man with
John’s baptism is not “rebaptized” in the immediately preceding context
(18:24-28), simply instructed in the further developments of truth (for the
fact that the gospel dispensation began with John does not mean that everything
about God’s new method of dealing with people was instantly perfectly
developed). Acts 18:24-9:7
supports, not undermines, the fact that Christian baptism is John’s baptism.
baptism and Christian baptism in Acts 19:1-7 is invalid. The individuals of Acts 19 were
spurious “converts,” not real disciples of John the Baptist. They did not believe in the Trinity,
and so were unsaved (John 17:3), for they had never even heard of the Holy
Spirit (19:2), although John preached about Him (Matthew 3:11). Their spurious discipleship is
indicated by the fact that the plural word “disciples,” mathetai, is nonarticular in 19:1—unlike every single one of
the 25 other references in the book of Acts to the word (1:15; 6:1-2, 7; 9:1,
19, 26, 38; 11:26, 29; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:1, 9, 30; 20:7, 30;
21:4, 16). Paul does not tell
these “disciples” that John’s baptism has passed away and Christian baptism has
now been inaugurated; he tells
them what John the Baptist really said (19:4), upon which they believed John’s
message as expounded by Paul and submitted themselves to baptism (19:5-7). Note that a truly born-again man with
John’s baptism is not “rebaptized” in the immediately preceding context
(18:24-28), simply instructed in the further developments of truth (for the
fact that the gospel dispensation began with John does not mean that everything
about God’s new method of dealing with people was instantly perfectly
developed). Acts 18:24-9:7
supports, not undermines, the fact that Christian baptism is John’s baptism.
[v]
In
Matthew, the “you” baptized with water are the “you” baptized with the Spirit
in Matthew 3:11. Note the connection
made by the me/n/de/ clause: e˙gw» me«n bapti÷zw
uJma◊ß e˙n u¢dati ei˙ß meta¿noian: oJ de« ojpi÷sw mou e˙rco/menoß
i˙scuro/tero/ß mou e˙sti÷n, ou∞ oujk ei˙mi« i˚kanoß ta» uJpodh/mata basta¿sai:
aujtoß uJma◊ß bapti÷sei e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ kai« puri÷. While preaching to unconverted Pharisees and Sadducees
does appear in the preceding context (3:7ff.), those baptized with water in
Matthew are those of the multitudes who repent and confess their sins (Matthew
3:6), not the unconverted. A comparison
with the other gospel accounts confirms what can be deduced from the Matthean
narrative.
In
Matthew, the “you” baptized with water are the “you” baptized with the Spirit
in Matthew 3:11. Note the connection
made by the me/n/de/ clause: e˙gw» me«n bapti÷zw
uJma◊ß e˙n u¢dati ei˙ß meta¿noian: oJ de« ojpi÷sw mou e˙rco/menoß
i˙scuro/tero/ß mou e˙sti÷n, ou∞ oujk ei˙mi« i˚kanoß ta» uJpodh/mata basta¿sai:
aujtoß uJma◊ß bapti÷sei e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ kai« puri÷. While preaching to unconverted Pharisees and Sadducees
does appear in the preceding context (3:7ff.), those baptized with water in
Matthew are those of the multitudes who repent and confess their sins (Matthew
3:6), not the unconverted. A comparison
with the other gospel accounts confirms what can be deduced from the Matthean
narrative.
[vi]
One who
would affirm that the preceding context of the verse refers to all the
“people,” saved and unsaved, rather than to baptized believers alone, and thus
does not make an association between the church and Spirit baptism, should
consider that the “you” who are to be baptized “with the Holy Ghost” are the
“you” who are baptized with water in Luke 3:16, and these are only the ones who
bear the fruits of repentance (v. 8).
Furthermore, a reference to the “people” does not require that
unbelievers in the promised land are included, since 3:21 refers to a time when
“all the people were baptized,” and clearly Luke does not mean that,
contradicting 3:8, John baptized pagans, the immoral, and, indeed, every last
person in the whole region, converted or not. The fulfillment of Spirit baptism as recorded in Acts fits
the predictions in the gospels—Christ baptized with the Spirit believers who
had already been immersed in water.
Compare endnote 69.
One who
would affirm that the preceding context of the verse refers to all the
“people,” saved and unsaved, rather than to baptized believers alone, and thus
does not make an association between the church and Spirit baptism, should
consider that the “you” who are to be baptized “with the Holy Ghost” are the
“you” who are baptized with water in Luke 3:16, and these are only the ones who
bear the fruits of repentance (v. 8).
Furthermore, a reference to the “people” does not require that
unbelievers in the promised land are included, since 3:21 refers to a time when
“all the people were baptized,” and clearly Luke does not mean that,
contradicting 3:8, John baptized pagans, the immoral, and, indeed, every last
person in the whole region, converted or not. The fulfillment of Spirit baptism as recorded in Acts fits
the predictions in the gospels—Christ baptized with the Spirit believers who
had already been immersed in water.
Compare endnote 69.
So then water baptism was efficacious to Spirit baptism. I say was, because you believe (1) Spirit baptism is no longer in effect; (2) Spirit baptism only happened to those that had received John the Baptist's baptism. Am I correct in what you are proposing as an interpretation of this?
Is this your belief Kent or TDR's belief?
Hi Lance.
I'll need to read this a little closer to see where you came to the conclusion that Thomas wrote what you said, but, no. But I'm also not 100% sure what you are asking.
I believe Spirit baptism was a historic event that in the context occurred with already water baptized people. It was promised to people already water baptized and then occurred with those already water baptized. That contradicts that simultaneous with conversion viewpoint.
Dear Bro Ketchum,
When Christ baptized the church with the Spirit in Acts 2, all the members of the pre-Pentecost church had been immersed, because baptism is how one becomes part of the church. So everyone who received Spirit baptism had also received water baptism. Spirit baptism never has and never will save anyone from any sin. Water baptism does not bring about Spirit baptism.
Thanks for commenting.
Bro. Ross,
You probably do not know me, but I am not a novice. I do not know you. I have read positions like yours before. I am just trying to find out where you and Kent are on this issue. There appears to be a lot of conflicting statements.
What local church were the disciples of John the Baptist added to?
Was John the Baptist part of the "church" you refer to (Matt. 11:11 or Luke 7:28)?
Do you make any distinction between the local assembly and the "general assembly" (Hebrews 12:230? Or the Dispensational transitions regarding either?
I am trying to understand your exegesis, but it does not work.
Is there a baptism with the Spirit into the "body of Christ" for every believer that is saved after the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 or not?
How does your doctrine of the baptism with the Spirit relate to regeneration ("the regeneration" or the New Genesis "in Christ" – Matt. 19:28)?
Are you saying all the believers that Paul addresses is I Cor. 12:13 were already disciples of John the Baptist?
Was John's baptism a baptism of repentance unto salvation or a baptism of repentance unto sanctification?
Acts 19:1-7; why two baptisms here?
Lance,
It would be nice for me if Thomas would answer your questions, so I'm not going to right away here, but I appreciate your inquisitiveness, and I have enjoyed and appreciated your writings, even though we haven't met. I don't think Thomas knows you. He really is out of the loop, so to speak, doesn't "keep up" with personalities exactly. He would know you if he read your book, something like that. But I don't think he meant any disrespect, even though you perceived that, so I apologize to you on his behalf. I didn't hear the disrespect when I read his comment, but I wasn't the recipient. Reading it as if it was being said to me had me understand better, however.
I've actually written on Spirit baptism a lot on this blog. And I know of four positions. I am interested in yours though and why you take it.
Kent,
I did not perceive any disrespect. I just thought his answer to my question was directed to someone he thought was lost. No apology necessary. I do not expect everyone to know me. We all travel in pretty limited circles.
Do you have my book The Unsearchable Riches of Grace?
The only people I have ever known who took similar positions to what is proposed here are Landmarkests, some Sovereign Grace people, some hyper-dispensationalists, and a few who hold to the New Perspective of Paul. Although I do not know you, I have read many things you have written. I never saw any inclinations in your writings towards any of those positions.
Hi Lance,
I don't have that book, but would look into getting it.
I think Thomas will answer the questions. I will look forward to your critique of his exegesis.
Dear Bro Ketchum,
Thanks for the questions. I definitely didn't think you were lost, based on comments you had made on the blog before. I was replying quickly and briefly because I have a lot going on, teaching a seminary Greek class, an undergraduate Greek class, and a Bible Institute class, as well as working a secular job.
I will answer the questions below in order.
What local church were the disciples of John the Baptist added to?
Answer: Christ gathered His assembly out of those immersed by the Baptist. They were not part of Christ's assembly until such time as they assembled with Him.
Was John the Baptist part of the "church" you refer to (Matt. 11:11 or Luke 7:28)?
Answer: No. The Kingdom of God is not the church, by the way. You have to be in the kingdom by regeneration before you can join the church by baptism.
Do you make any distinction between the local assembly and the "general assembly" (Hebrews 12:230? Or the Dispensational transitions regarding either?
Answer: The word ekklesia means assembly. Things that do not assemble are not assemblies. When we all get to heaven, it will be a wonderful future assembly. If your question is if only Baptists will be in the heavenly assembly, the answer is definitely a no. The church of which I am a member is not the heavenly assembly; they are different.
I am trying to understand your exegesis, but it does not work.
Answer: Thank you for trying to understand. I believe it does work, very well, in fact.
Is there a baptism with the Spirit into the "body of Christ" for every believer that is saved after the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 or not?
Answer: No. You can expect more detail in later posts, where 1 Cor 12:13 will be examined. If you want to find out what is going to be said beforehand, you can read my essay on Spirit baptism at my website.
How does your doctrine of the baptism with the Spirit relate to regeneration ("the regeneration" or the New Genesis "in Christ" – Matt. 19:28)?
Answer: Regeneration and Spirit baptism are two different doctrines. Those who received Spirit baptism in the NT were already regenerated.
Are you saying all the believers that Paul addresses is I Cor. 12:13 were already disciples of John the Baptist?
Answer: The Corinthians were disciples of Christ, not of John the Baptist.
Was John's baptism a baptism of repentance unto salvation or a baptism of repentance unto sanctification?
Answer: John's baptism was a baptism of repentance in that it was a baptism because of or based on repentance, just like a "work of faith" or "labor of love" is a work based on or because of faith or a labor based on or because of love. John baptized people because they had repented. Baptists today also preach the baptism of repentance.
Acts 19:1-7; why two baptisms here?
Answer: The people in Acts 19:1-7 were not saved, as they did not even believe in the Trinity. Note that at the end of Acts 18 someone who had John's baptism but was truly saved was NOT given a new baptism. There is an explicit and pointed contrast between the two. I commented on this in footnote #4 to my post.
The only people I have ever known who took similar positions to what is proposed here are Landmarkests, some Sovereign Grace people, some hyper-dispensationalists, and a few who hold to the New Perspective of Paul. Although I do not know you, I have read many things you have written. I never saw any inclinations in your writings towards any of those positions.
Answer: Was E. Y. Mullins, president of a Baptist seminary and contributor to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in one of the groups you mentioned? Please note what he said about Spirit baptism in part #2 of this series. In my essay on Spirit baptism on my website I document extensively that the view I take is the historic Baptist view, espoused by the largest Baptist association in early America, by famous Baptists such as B. H. Carroll, etc.
Thanks for commenting. I am thankful for your interest in this subject. My complete essay is at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7.
Brother Ross,
Thanks for your response, although I disagree with most of it.
Why would you say John the Baptist was not regenerated at least in the Old Covenant sense of the word and therefore not part of the "church" you say was begun by his baptism?
If the baptism with the Spirit has ceased, how do believers get "in Christ" as He promised in John 14:20 – "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."
This will be my last inquiry regarding this.
Dear Bro Ketchum,
Your question:
Why would you say John the Baptist was not regenerated at least in the Old Covenant sense of the word and therefore not part of the "church" you say was begun by his baptism?
My answer:
Regeneration does not make one part of the church. Regeneration is soteriological and the church is ecclesiological. The equation "church=the regenerate" came from the Roman Catholic formulation originated by Cyprian that outside the church there is no salvation.
John 3:29 states:
He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
John the Baptist was the friend of the bridegroom. Christ already in the gospels had (note the verse says "hath," present tense) the church as His bride. The friend of the bridegroom is not the bride.
You asked:
If the baptism with the Spirit has ceased, how do believers get "in Christ" as He promised in John 14:20 – "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."
My answer:
Believers get "in Christ" by faith, by believing in Him. The Bible never says anywhere that one is "in Christ" because of receiving Spirit baptism. The Bible never says that union with Christ takes place through Spirit baptism. That might have been the view of the Presbyterian Lewis Sperry Chafer and of Dallas Seminary, based on taking texts in the epistles about water baptism such as Romans 6 and making them into Spirit baptism (which helped to avoid the necessity of believer's immersion), but it is not the view of Scripture.
Thanks again for your inquiries. I am glad you want to believe what Scripture teaches on this subject, and, I trust, on all subjects.
Two commenters (TDR, and, if I recall, Gary Webb) now at WIT have stated that the assembly in Heb 12 is future when both the KJV and the ESV seem to state it as a present reality (ye are come/you have come, respectively).
Why?